MigL

I think Juanrga means electrons are particles according to the QFT definition of a particle, ie an excitation or 'knot' if you will, in the fermionic quantum field. Electrons can behave as classical particles or waves depending on the method of observation, but are by no means classical particles or waves. Quantum field theory sees all spaces occupied by fermionic and bosonic quantum fields, including all space 'inside' an atom.

Kerr metric ?

You asked for oe example and I gave one, John. And yes, I meant AD. You must also realise how hard it is to show that a cause DIDN'T result in a specific effect, since you can't isolate variables after the fact. I stand by my statement that religion is a belief and as such, unproveable, while any science has to be proven by definition. Inow is absolutely right, the two should have no bearing on each other ( although unfortunately, they do for some creationists ). There are other 'beliefs' which have caused way more death and suffering than religion, and though I'm going off topic I'll mention them... Consider communisim, the belief that the needs of the state outweigh individual needs, used by Stalin to finance his 5 yr modernization plans of the 30s, wher he starved 28 million Ukranians to death. Or Mao in China in the 50s and 60s, or Pol Pot in Cambodia's killing fields. How many millions were killed there for a belief. Consider nationalism ( pride ) and the belief that your nation is better than others, which can be directly linked to most major wars of the 19th century, like the Franco-Prussian war and the Italian unification war against the Hapsburg empire. It is also a direct cause of the 1st World War and as a consequence, the 2nd World War. That accounts for almost 60 million deaths for just the two World wars. Consider capitalism ( greed ), the belief in wealth at any cost. I won't even discuss the gluttony of western societies and their colonial ambitions. But consider China, home nation to the largest number of billionaires and where more than a billion people live on a handful of rice per day. How much suffering and death have these beliefs caused ? And do people that have these beliefs have their scientific acconplishments questioned ?

Well John ( and randomc ), I can think of one instance of religion stopping a war right off the top of my head... In the year 450 BC, after having ransacked most of eastern and western Europe, the forces of the Hunnish empire, led by Attila the Hun, were poised to sack Rome. The pope of the period ( actually known as the 'bishop' of Rome at the time ), Leo the 1st, met with Attila and convinced him to withdraw from Italy and make peace with the Emperor of the western Roman empire. Attila the Hun left Italy for his home of the eastern steppes, and died shortly after, leaving his empire in disarray, and they never again threatened the west. Like I said, I'm not religious, but I am tolerant, and if some people need to believe in a higher power, who am I to deny them that option. Besides, the two are apples and oranges, one is a belief ( requires no proof ) the other is a science and is solely based on proof. I leave it to you to decide which is which.

Born and raised as a Roman Catholic (I am of Italian origin) but have pretty well given it up. This may colour my opinions. Everyone seems to remember the evils brought about by religion but noone remembers all the good they've done and the wars they've stopped. I would argue that religion is important for ancient developing societies, up to probabily the industrial revolution, because they instilled morals on people. Otherwise it would have been a purely animalistic survival of the fittest. Universal access to education, at least in the developed countries, has brought an end to the need for religion. Don't know if this concerns the OP and scientists' beliefs.

I posted this a while back regarding the source of dark matter... 'Consider heterotic string theory of the E8xE8 symmetry group. In this supersymmetric theory, by Gross of Princeton I believe. each closed string has inherent dimensionality of ten in one direction to describe fermionic fields and sixteen more in the opposite direction ( 26 tootal ) to describe bosonic fields. It does not need renormalization and has gravitons as one of the bosonic field excitations. This E8xE8 symmetry breaks into two E8 symmetry groups, which then breaks to an E6 group and again to the familiar SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) groups of GUT ( SU(3) ) and standard model Electroweak ( SU(2)xU(1) ). The two E8 symmetry groups are in effect two separate universes connected only by gravity since the other forces only arise after the symmetry break. This second universe s invisible to all other forces except gravity, so we have in effect at least doubled the mass of the universe without any visible other matter, and since the second E8 group does not have to break in the same sequence as the first, it could be composed of heavier particles, like say the supersymmetric equivalents of normal particles, explaning why they have never been observed and will not be until we can reach E8xE8 unification enrgy levels. I don't know enough about string theory to comment on the validity of this approach, maybe AJB can make some comments as he seems to be well versed on the subject." I am familiar with the hierarchy problem, but does this push the susy restoration energy too high ?

I believe Einstein already had his PhD in 1905 when he published his three papers ( Special Relativity, Photoelectric effect and Brownian motion ) all while working at the Swiss patent office because he couldn't get a teaching position. The Lorentz- Ftzgerald transforms were an early attempt to explain relativistic effects along with the null result of the Michelson-Morly experiment. Most people, however, believe that Poincaire would have been first with a version of SR if Einstein hadn't delivered. GR however was totally unforeseen by anyone else and may still not be available today if not for Einstein. The UV catastrophy was a problem with black body radiation that was solved by Max Planck in 1900, before Einstein even finished his schooling. He did later expand on Planck's ideas with a collaborator who I can't seem to remember right now.

You keep bringing up the far away observer frame of reference and claim that since time comes to astandstill in THAT frame, it must be what actually happens, ie in every frame. You can't grasp the concept that GR is frame independant because there is no absolute frame that determines what actually happens. There is no background frame or stage ( absolute time or absolute space ) upon which events happen. The far away observer only sees reflected light from the object falling in the black hole. Light is a vibration of electric and magnetic fields with a time dependance. The light moving away from the vicinity of the event horizon ( if it still can ) has its time base stretched towards infinity ( just like you claim ) so that light eminating from the event horizon has its time base stretched to infinity and so has no energy left and cannot be seen, ie its black !!! In the objects local frame things are vastly different. There is no time dilation and the object proceeds through the event horizon on its way to meet up with the possible singularity. There are numerous books where this is demonstrated mathematically by people like Oppenhimer. Novikov, Vald'ovich, Wheeler and the previously mentioned Thorne , Hawking and Penrose. Why don't you try reading some of them. Is it any wonder you have no posts in the physics or math forums, but only in speculations ? That's where the kooks and cranks reside, while the rest of us just check in every once in a while to make sure you guys don't hurt your brains. Yeah, you did bitch slap me; What else would I expect from a bitch.

If I say unicorns are pink, and no one refutes it ( either because there are no unicorns so no one knows their colour, or because its a dumb assertion ), does that make unicorns real and pink ?? That's the logic you just used to 'slap me down'. It must be bulletproof.

Very well, here are the facts... Motion is the movement along geodesics through curved space-time. Not a change of the distance between objects. It only seems like following straight lines in curved space-time because we use light to define straight lines, and light also followes the curvature of space-time. What defines black hole geometry is the mass ( charge and angular momentum can be disregarded for current arguments ). the mass predetermines the radius of the event horizon. There is no outward or inward acceleration or bounces. As the mass gravitationally collapses and passes through the mathematical limit which defines the event horizon, to a distant frame of reference time stops ( the Russians originally called them frozen stars ), which also means reflected light's wavelengths are strtched to infinity and frequency is reduced to zero, making it disappear, ie black. The mass continues contracting to a possible singularity, from a local frame of reference. A quantum gravity theory will eventually confirm or falsify the singularity. Your two ships connected by a rope are no different than a single ship that 'submerges' part of itself inside the event horizon. There is a theory, don't recall if it was Wheeler or Thorne ( or even Hawking or Penrose ) that any pertruding parts of something that enters the event horizon will also collapse spherically into the hole. So there is no paradox. I have tries to use simple understandable concepts and no math ( don't do laTEX anyway ). My views are supported by other members of this forum and by leading experts in the field like the aforementioned Thorne, Hawking and Penrose. So tell me, who supports your views ???

David, David... Newton knew the explanation for the tides 300+ yrs ago and could easily have inferred the movement of the moon away from earth. I don't know wether he did or not and don't have time to look it up. But it certainly wouldn't have needed verification from NASA.

Another way to look at it is that momentum is related to the energy of a particle. If you try and confine the particle to smaller and smaller spaces, it bounces around much more violently, so that its energy, and so its momentum becomes more and more indeterminate.

IIn the higher symmetry state, before spontaneous symmetry breaking, all particles are massless. It is through the coupling of these massless particles to the Higgs field, that they aquire mass. Not just quarks, but all fermions like electrons and their relatives, and massive evctor bosons like the +/-W and Z.

David Levy still cannot understand that the reason the moon is slowly moving away from the Earht is due to the change in angular momentum from the tidal forces, ie the orbital radius is slowly increasing. He then says the same thing is happening to Mars to move it away from the Sun compared to past times. I would think any 'tides' caused on the Sun ( it is gaseous after all ) by the tug of Mars' orbit would be obliterated by that of Jupiter, Saturn and even the Earth, Venus and Mercury which are much closer ( remember the inverse square dependance of gravity ). Tidal forces due to Mars would be negligible. Or maybe like his theory on universal expansion, matter is being created in the center of the sun and forcing everything outward. If you were to take a chunk of the frozen ice cap of Mars and you heated it, would it sublimate like CO2 does or would it liquify. If the latter, then the atmosphere of Mars can support liquid water. Its temperature can't. As for Astrology, I haven't a clue what he's on about.

Tidal forces would still be impossible to deal with. Read Kip Thorne's book ' Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's outrageous Legacy' for an explanation of wormholes, their problems and their uses for generating CTL ( time machines ). Turns out the biggest problem is keeping them open as they would collapse immediately upon entry. The only way to keep them open is threading them with exotic matter ( ie possessing negative energy ). The one place this exotic material can be harvested is at the event horizon of a black hole. A Kerr black hole is a rotating black hole and, as a result, has an inner and an outer event horizon which is thickest at the'equator and co-incidental at the poles. This area between the event horizons is an area of negative energy where large amounts of exotic matter could be harvested ( by a sufficiently advanced civilization ).

So, I'm the idiot, A-wal ??? It seems to me everyone is dis-agreeing WITH YOU, and these are people with actual degrees, who know their stuff and are well respected in our forum's community. You, on the other hand, have no relevant education, are ignorant and rude: I don't think you'll last very long as a member before getting banned. You would have been banned already if there was a rule against ignorance and refusal to be convinced by the facts. I guess this is just your online persona that we are presented, because if you acted the way you do online in the real world, you would have gotten your ass kicked way too many times.

Seems ACG52 beat me to it. His answers demonstrate that you _do_not_ have a clear, if any,understanding of GR. I would like to add one thing though, The Earth has an escape velocity of approx. 18000 mi/hr, ie to escape to infinity you need to move at that speed. Do you think that means that all objects captured by Earth's gravity have a speed at any time during their fall, or at impact, of 18000 mi/hr ?? Similarily a black hole with an escape velocity of c , does not imply infalling objects must reach lightspeed at the event horizon.

I've often said the same thing about wave-particle duality, Ronald. You seem to have a lot of knowledge to pass onto others when you're not on one of your flights of speculation. Keep it up.

I wasn't aware that that coud happen. Thanks Timo.

I think the biggest fault of the OP is that its toooo looong and too verbose and just for that reason it should be moved to the least popular forum. No-one should have to read something like that; I certainly didn't. Next time just get to the point before everyone loses interest. I did get something from one of your later posts and I think you need to look up the definition of escape velocity, It is defined as the speed at which an object escapes a gravitational potential to INFINITY. This speed, at the event horizon of a black hole ( simple Swartzchild, not charged and non rotating, so not likely to actually exist ) is the speed of light. Since the inverse is also applicable, in effect, an object would need to be accelerated by a black hole from infinitely far away to reach the speed of light at the event horizon of a simple Swartzchild black hole and in the absence of any other gravitational forces along the way. Not very likely, is it. Black holes are the simplest macroscopic constructs that we know of. The external, macroscopic event horizon is described explicitly byGR and just a few numbers. The fact that its microscopic features, like the possible singularity, is beyond our current ability to describe, is no reason to throw out the GR baby along with the bathwater.

If the Higgs mechanism gives mass to formerly massless particles through their coupling with the Higgs field, then what mechanism imparts mass to the Higgs boson ? The Higgs boson is an 'excitation' of the scalar Higgs field and unless scalar fields are self-coupling ( I'm not sure myself ), there needs to be another, separate mechanism for the Higgs boson's mass. It seems kind of strange that nature would use one mechanism for all particle masses and then tack on another separate mechanism for the bosonic manifestation of the first mechanism. See the following arXiv paper... "What is the Origin of the Mass of the Higgs Boson?" - by Novello and Bittencourt for an elaborate explanation of the Higgs mechanism as opposed to the Machian, metric tensor mechanism for particle masses.

As Timo has stated it is the coupling strength of the particle to the Higgs field, ie. how strongly the particle interacts with the scalar Higgs field, which supposedly determines the mass of the particle. Not the strength of the Higgs field, which would have a constant value. Different quarks, if the superstring representation is valid, would have differing vibrational harmonics which would affect their coupling strength to give different masses for the quarks. Again, assuming the validity of superstring theory. There is also a Machian theory of mass which is due to the local, causal distribution of mass-energy, as I don't think the Higgs boson has been 100% identified yet. And since scalar fields can couple with gravity, the cause of mass could even be a combination of Higgs and Mach mechanisms.

QM takes place on the fixed background of space and time. I rather like the fact that GR gets rid of the fixed background space and time. Loop Quantum Gravity preserves those qualities of GR, but it doesn't seem to get as much exposure as SString or M theory with the only advocates that I'm familiar with being Rovelli and Smolin.

Cut your losses and run ?? Typical crank behaviour, oh and tell us what does SDA stand for ?

No you are missing the point. A static gravitational field emits no gravitational waves according to GR. A varying gravitational field, on the other hand, does, but the only energy 'carried away' by gravitational waves are the variable components. In effect if a mass is orbiting another static ( assume ) mass, gravitational waves carry away the orbital energy such that the orbit decays and eventually joins the static mass, at which point no more energy is lost to gravitational waves. The masses themselves do not decay gravitationally, at least not for more than 10^32 yrs ( proton decay ). What does YOUR patented theory predict ???